upon them, but he did not baptize them with it, according to the immersionists, since he only "poured it upon them," "shed it upon them," caused it "to fall upon them," none of which, according to them, is haptism. It follows, therefore, that the prediction of John was never fulfilled, because in their sense of baptizing, none of the disciples of Jesus mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles ever received the Holy Ghost but by effusion. This is the dilemma into which they put themselves. They must w that baptism is not in this passage used for immor.on; or they must deny that Jesus ever did baptize with the Holy Ghost. To baptize "in Jordan" does not then signify to plunge in the river of Jordan. John made the neighbourhood of Jordan the principal place of his ministry. Either at the fountains of some favoured district, or at some river, baptize he must, because of the multitudes who came to his baptism, in a country deficient in springs and of water in general; but there are several ways of understanding the phrase “in Jordan," which give a sufficiently good sense, and involve no contradietion to the words of John himself, who makes his baptism an effusion of water, to answer to the effusion of the Holy Spirit as administered by Jesus. It may be taken as a note of place, not of mode. "In Jordan," therefore, the expression of St. Matthew is; in St. John, IN Bethabara, beyond," or situate on, "Jordan, where John was baptizing;" and this seems all that the expression was intended to mark, and is the sense to be preferred. It is thus equivalent to "at Jordan," "at Bethabara, situate on Jordan" at being a frequent sense of εν. Or it may signify that the water of Jordan was made use of by John for baptizing, however it might be applied; for we should think it no violent mode of expression to say that we washed ourselves in a river, although we should mean, not that we plunged ourselves into it, but merely that we took up the water in our hands, and applied it in the way of effusion. Or it may be taken to express his baptizing in the bed of the river, into which he must have descended with the baptized, in order to take up the water with his hand, or with some small vessel, as represented in ancient bass-reliefs, to pour it out upon them. This would be the position of any baptizer using a river at all accessible by a shelving bank; and when within the bed of the stream, he might as truly be said to be in the river, when mere place was the principal thing to be pointed out, as if he had been immersed in the water. The Jordan in this respect is rather remarkable, having, according to Maundrell, an outermost bank formed by its occasional "swellings." The remark of this traveller is, "After having descended the outermost bank, you go a furlong upon a level strand, before you come to the immediate bank of the river." Any of these views of the import of the phrases"in Jordan," "in the river of Jordan," used plainly with intention to point out the place where John exercised his ministry, will sufficiently explain them, without involving us in the inextricable difficulties which embarrass the theory that John baptized only by immersion. To go, indeed, to a river to baptize, would, in such countries as our own, where water for the mere purpose of effusion may readily be obtained ont of cisterns, pumps, &c., very naturally suggests to the simple reader, that the reason for John's choice of a river was, that it afforded the means of immersion. But in those countries the case was different. Springs, as we have said, were scarce, and the water for domestic purposes had to be fetched daily by the women in pitchers from the nearest rivers and fountains, which rendered the domestic supply scanty, and of course valuable. But even if this reason did not exist, baptism in rivers would not, as a matter of course, imply immersion. Of this we have an instance in the customs of the people of Mesopotamia, mentioned in the Journal of Wolfe, the missionary. This sect of Christians call themselves "the followers of St. John the Baptist, who was a follower of Christ." Among many other questions, Mr. Wolfe inquired of one of them respecting their mode of baptism, and was answered,The priests or bishop baptize children thirty days old. They take the child to the banks of the river; a relative or friend holds the child near the surface of the water, while the priest sprinkles the element upon the child, and with prayers they name the child."(2) Mr. Wolfe asks, "Why do they baptize in rivers?" (2) Journal, vol. li. p. 311. Answer: "Because St. John the Baptist baptized in the river Jordan." The same account was given afterward by one of their bishops or high priests: "They carry the children after thirty days to the river, the priest says a prayer, the godfather takes the child to the river, while the priest sprinkles it with water." Thus we have in modern times river baptism without immersion; and among the Syrian Christians, though immersion is used, it does not take place till after the true baptismal rite, pouring water upon the child in the name of the Trinity, has been performed. The second proof adduced by the immersionists is taken from the baptism of our Lord, who is said, Matt. iii. 16, to have gone up straightway out of the water." Here, however, the preposition used signifies from, and aveẞn ano T8 vdaros, is simply "he went up from the water." We grant that this might have been properly said, in whatever way the baptism had been previously performed; but then it certainly in itself affords no argument on which to build the notion of the immersion of our Saviour. The great passage of the immersionists, however, is Acts viii. 38, 39: "And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him; and when they were come up out of the water," c. This is relied upon as a decisive proof of the im mersion and emersion of the eunuch. If so, however, it proves too much; for nothing is said of the eunuch which is not said of Philip, "They went down BOTH into the water," "and when THEY were come up out of the water ;" and so Philip must have immersed himself as well as the eunuch. Nor will the prepositions determine the case; they would have been employed properly had Philip and the eunuch gone into the water by partial or by entire immersion, and therefore come out of it on dry land; and with equal propriety, and according to the habitual use of the same prepositions by Greek writers, they would express going to the wa ter without going into it, and returning from it, and not out of it, for as is spoken of place, and properly signifies at, or it indicates motion towards a certain limit, and, for any thing that appears to the contrary, in the history of the eunuch's baptism, that limit may just as well be placed at the nearest verge of the water as in the middle of it. Thus the LXX. say, Isa. xxvi. 2, "The king sent Rabshakeh from Lachish, as, to Jerusalem," certainly not into it, for the city was not captured. The sons of the prophets "came, as, to Jordan to cut wood," 2 Kings vi. 4. They did not, we suppose, go into the water to perform that work. Peter was bid to "go, as, to the sea, and cast a hook," not surely to go into the sea; and our Lord, Matt. v. 1, "went up, as, to a mountain," but not into it. corresponding preposition ɛk, which signifies, when used of place, from, out of, must be measured by the meaning of es When is means into, then εK means out of; but when it means simply to, then ɛk can express no more than from. Thus this passage is nothing to the purpose of the immersionists. The The next proof relied upon in favour of immersion is John iii. 22, 23: “ After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea, and there he tarried with them and baptized; and John also was baptizing in non, near to Salim, because there was much water there, and they came and were baptized." The immersionists can see no reason for either Jesus or John baptizing where there was much water, but that they plunged their converts. The true reason for this has, however, been already given. Where could the multitudes who came for baptism be assembled? Clearly not in houses. The preaching was in the fields; and since the rite which was to follow a ministry which made such an impression, and drew together such crowds, was baptism, the necessity of the case must lead the Baptist to Jordan, or to some other district, where, if a river was wanting, fountains at least existed. The necessity was equal in this case, whether the mode of baptism were that of aspersion, of pouring, or of immersion. The Baptists, however, have magnified Enon, which signifies the fountain of On, into a place of “many and great waters." Unfortunately, however, no such powerful fountain, sending out many streams of water fit for plunging multitudes into, has ever been found by travellers, although the country has been often visited; and certainly, if its streams had been of the copious and remarkable character assigned to them, they could not have vanished. It rather appears, how Still farther, as the Apostle in the same connexion speaks of our being "CRUCIFIED with Christ," and that also by baptism, why do they not show us how immersion in water resembles the nailing of a body to a cross? ever, that the "much water," or "many waters," in | upon a tree, the resemblance is still more imperfect. the text, refers rather to the whole tract of country, than to the fountain of On itself; because it appears to be given by the evangelist as the reason why Jesus and his disciples came into the same neighbourhood to baptize. Different baptisins were administered, and therefore in different places. The baptism administered by Jesus at this time was one of multitudes; this appears from the remark of one of John's disciples to his master: "He that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and ALL MEN come to him." The place or places, too, where Jesus baptized, although in the same district, could not be very near, since John's disciple mentions the multitudes who came to be baptized by Jesus, or rather by his disciples, as a piece of information; and thus we find a reason for the mention of the much water, or many waters, with reference to the district of country itself, and not to the single fountain of ON. The tract had probably many fountains in it, which, as being a peculiarity in a country not generally so distinguished, would lead to the use of the expression "much water," although not one of these fountains or wells might be sufficient to allow of the plunging of numbers of people, and probably was not. Indeed, if the disciples of Jesus baptized by immersion, the immersionists are much more concerned to discover "much water," many waters," "large and deep streams," somewhere else in the district than at Enon; because it is plain from the narrative, that the number of candidates for John's baptism had greatly fallen off at that time, and that the people now generally flocked to Christ. Hence the remark of John," faith" as the instrument,-a comparison between the verse 30, when his disciples had informed him that Jesus was baptizing in the neighbourhood, and that "all men came to him,"-"He must increase, I must decrease." Hence also the observation of the evangelist in the first verse of the next chapter. "The Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John." As these instances all so plainly fail to serve the cause of immersion, we need not dwell upon the others. The improbability of three thousand persons being immersed on the day of Pentecost, has been already mentioned. The baptism of Saul, of Lydia, of the Philippian jailer, and of the family of Cornelius, are all instances of house baptism, and, for that reason, are still less likely to have been by plunging. The Immersionists, indeed, invent "tanks," or "baths," for this purpose, in all these houses; but, as nothing of the kind appears on the face of the history, or is even incidentally suggested, suppositions prove nothing. But this striking and important text is not to be explained by a fancied resemblance between a burial, as they choose to call it, of the body in water, and the burial of Christ; as if a dip or a plunge could have any resemblance to that separan, n from the living, and that laying aside of a body in the sepulchre, which burial implies. This forced thought darkens and enervates the whole passage, instead of bringing forth its powerful sentiments into clearer view. The manifest object of the Apostle in the whole of this part of his Epistle, was to show, that the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which he had just been establishing, could not in any true believer lead to licentiousness of life. "What then shall we say? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid! How shall we that are DEAD to sin, live any longer therein ?" The reason then which is given by the Apostle why true believers CANNOT continue in sin, is, that they are "DEAD to sin," which is his answer to the objection. Now, this mystical death to sin he proceeds to attribute to the INTSRUMENTALITY of baptism, taking it to be an act of that faith in Christ of which it was the external expression; and then he immediately runs into a favourite comparison, which under various forms occurs in his writings, sometimes accompanied with the same allusion to baptism, and sometimes referring only to mystical death, burial, and resurrection of believers, and the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. This is the comparison of the text; not a comparison between our mystical death and baptism; nor between baptism and the death and burial of Christ; either of which lay wide of the Apostle's intention. Baptism, as an act of faith, is, in fact, expressly made, not a figure of the effects which follow, as stated in the text, but the means of effecting them. "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death;" we enter by this means into the experience of its efficacy in effecting a mystical death in us; in other words, wE DIE with him, or, as it is expressed in verse 6, "Our old man is crucified with him." Still farther, "by baptism," dia T8 Barrioμaros, through or by means of, baptism, "we are BURIED with him;" we not only die to sin and the world, but we are separated wholly from it, as the body of Christ was separated from the living world, when laid in the sepulchre; the connexion between sin and the world and us is completely broken; and those who are buried and put out of sight are no longer reckoned among men; nay, as the slave (for the Apostle brings in this figure also) is by death and burial wholly put out of the power of his former master, so “that we should not serve sin; for he that is dead is freed from sin." But we also mystically RISE with him; "that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life," having new connexions, new habits, new enThe only argument left for the advocates of immer-joyments, and new hopes. We have a similar passage sion is the supposed allusion to the mode of baptism in Col. ii. 12, and it has a similar interpretation: contained in the words of St. Paul, Rom. vi. 3, 4:"Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism, into death; that, like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." It is necessary, however, to quote the next verses also, which are dependent upon the foregoing, "For if we have been PLANTED together," still by baptism, "in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection; knowing this, that our old man is CRUCIFIED with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin," v. 5-7. Why then do not the advocates of immersion go forward to these verses, so inseparably connected with those they are so ready to quote, and show us a resemblance, not only between baptism by immersion, and being buried with Christ; but also between immersion, and being "planted with Christ?" If the allusion of the Apostle is to the planting of a young tree in the earth, there is clearly but a very partial, not a total immersion in the case; and if it be to GRAFTING a branch Thus all the presumptions before mentioned, against the practice of immersion, lie full against it, without any relief from the Scriptures themselves. Not one instance can be shown of that practice from the New Testament, while, so far as baptism was emblematical of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, the doctrine of immersion wholly destroys its significancy. In fact, if the true mode of baptism be immersion only, then must we wholly give up the phrase, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which in any other mode than that of pouring out was never administered. with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." In the preceding verse the Apostle had been speaking of the mystical DEATH of Christians, under the phrase "putting off the body of the sins of the flesh;" then, as in his Epistle to the Romans, he adds our mystical BURIAL with Christ, which is a heightened representation of death; and then also, our RISING again with Christ. Here too all these three effects are attributed to baptism as the means. We put off the body of sins "by the circumcision of Christ," that is, as we have seen, by Christian circumcision or baptism; we are buried with him by baptism; Ev being obviously used here, like dia, to denote the instrument; and by baptism we rise with him into a new life. Now to institute a comparison between a mode of baptism and the burial of Christ wholly destroys the meaning of the passage; for how can the Apostle speak of baptism as an emblem of Christ's burial, when he argues from it as the instrument of our death unto sin, and separation from it by a mystical burial? Nor is baptism here made use of as the emblem of our own As baptism was substituted for circumcision, so the Lord's Supper was put by our Saviour in the place of the Passover; and was instituted immediately after celebrating that ordinance for the last time with his disciples. The passover was an eminent type of our Lord's sacrifice and of its benefits; and since he was about to fulfil that symbolical rite which from age to ancient saints, it could have no place under the new dispensation. Christ in person became the true Passover; and a new rite was necessary to commemorate the spiritual deliverance of men, and to convey and confirm its benefits. The circumstances of its institution are explanatory of its nature and design. spiritual death, burial, and resurrection. As an emblem, even immersion, though it might put forth a clumsy type of burial and rising again, is wanting in not being emblematical of DEATII; and yet all three, our mystical death, burial, and rising again, are distinctly spoken of, and must all be found represented in some TYPE. But the TYPE made use of by the Apostle is manifestly not baptism, but the death, the burial, and the resurrec-age had continued to exhibit it to the faith and hope of tion of our Lord; and in this view he pursues this bold and impressive figure to even the verge of allegory, in the succeeding verses: "For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God; LIKEWISE reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." In the absence, therefore, of all proof, that in any instance found in the New Testament, baptism was administered by immersion; with so many presumptions against that indecent practice as have been stated; with the decisive evidence also of a designed correspondence between the baptism, the pouring out, of the Holy Spirit, and the baptism, the pouring out, of water; we may conclude, with confidence, that the latter was the Apostolic mode of administering that ordinance; and that first washing, and then immersion, were introduced later, towards the latter end of the second century, along with several other superstitious additions to his important sacrament, originating in that "will-worship" which presumed to destroy the simplicity of God's ordinances, under pretence of(3) rendering them more emblematical and impressive. Even if immersion had been the original mode of baptizing, we should, in the absence of any command on the subject direct or implied, have thought the Church at liberty to accommodate the manner of applying water to the body in the name of the Trinity, in which the essence of the rite consists, to different climates and manners; but it is satisfactory to discover that all the attempts made to impose upon Christians a practice repulsive to the feelings, dangerous to the health, and offensive to delicacy, is destitute of all scriptural authority, and of really primitive practice. CHAPTER IV. THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE CHURCH.-THE LORD'S THE agreement and difference between baptism and the Lord's Supper are well stated by the Church of Scotland in its Catechism: "The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper agree, in that the author of both is God; the spiritual part of both is Christ and his benefits; both are seals of the same covenant; to be dispensed by ministers of the gospel, and none other; and to be continued in the Church of Christ until his second coming." "These sacraments differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once with water,-and that even to infants; whereas the Lord's Supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves." On the night when the first-born of Egypt were slain, the children of Israel were commanded to take a lamb for every house, to kill it, and to sprinkle the blood upon the posts of their doors, so that the destroying angel might pass over the houses of all who had attended to this injunction. Not only were the firstborn children thus preserved alive, but the effect was the deliverance of the whole nation from their bondage in Egypt, and their becoming the visible Church and people of God by virtue of a special covenant. In commemoration of these events, the feast of the Passover was made annual, and at that time all the males of Judea assembled before the Lord in Jerusalem; a lamb was provided for every house; the blood was poured under the altar by the Priests, and the lamb was eaten by the people in their tents or houses. At this domestic and religious feast, every master of a family took the cup of thanksgiving, and gave thanks with his family to the God of Israel. As soon, therefore, as our Lord, acting as the master of his family, the disciples, had finished this the usual paschal ceremony, he proceeded to a new and distinct action: "He took bread," the bread then on the table, "and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave it to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper," the cup with the wine which had been used in the paschal supper, "saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you;" or, as it is expressed by St. Matthew, "and he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." That this was the institution of a standing rite, and not a temporary action to be confined to the disciples then present with him, is made certain from 1 Cor. xi. 23-26: "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks he brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." From these words we learn, 1. That St. Paul received a special revelation as to this ordinance, which must have had a higher object than the mere commemoration of an historical fact, and must be supposed to have been made for the purpose of enjoining it upon him to establish this rite in the Churches raised up by him, and of enabling him rightly to understand its authority and purport, where he found it already appointed by the first founders of the first Churches. 2. That the command of Christ, "This do the disciples present with Christ at the last Passover, is laid by St. Paul upon the Corinthians. 3. That he regarded the Lord's Supper as a rite to be “often" celebrated, and that in all future time until the Lord himself should "come" to judge the world. The perpetual obligation of this ordinance cannot therefore be reasonably disputed. (3) Baptism, as an emblem, points out, 1. The wash-in remembrance of me," which was originally given to ing away of the guilt and pollution of sin. 2. The pouring out of the Holy Spirit. In Scripture it is made an emblem of these two, and of these only. Some of the superstitions above alluded to sin therefore by excess; but immersion sins by defect. It retains the emblematical character of the rite as to the washing away of sin; but it loses it entirely as to the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, beyond the washing away of sin, is an emblem of nothing for which we have any scriptural authority to make it emblematical. Immersion, therefore, as distinct from every other mode of applying water to the body, means nothing. To say that it figures our spiritual death and resurrection, has, we have seen, no authority from the texts used to prove it; and to make a sudden pop under water to be emblematical of burial, is as far-fetched a conceit as any which adorns the Emblems of Quarles, without any portion of the ingenuity. Of the nature of this great and affecting rite of Christianity, different and very opposite opinions have been formed, arising partly from the elliptical and figurative modes of expression adopted by Christ at its institution; but more especially from the influence of superstition upon some, and the extreme of affected rationalism upon others. The first is the monstrous theory of the Church of Rome, as contradictory to the Holy Scriptures, whose words it professes to receive in their literal meaning, as it is revolting to the senses and reason of mankind." "It is conceived that the words, 'This is my body; This is my blood,' are to be understood in their most literal sense; that when Jesus pronounced these words, he changed, by his almighty power, the bread upon the table into his body, and the wine into his blood, and really delivered his body and blood into the hands of his Apostles; and that at all times when the Lord's Supper is administered, the Priest, by pronouncing these words with a good intention, has the power of making a similar change. This change is known by the name of transubstantiation; the propriety of which name is conceived to consist in this, that although the bread and wine are not changed in figure, taste, weight, or any other accident, it is believed that the substance of them is completely destroyed; that in place of it, the substance of the body and blood of Christ, although clothed with all the sensible properties of bread and wine, is truly present; and that the persons who receive what has been consecrated by pronouncing these words, do not receive bread and wine, but literally partake of the body and blood of Christ, and really eat his flesh, and drink his blood. It is farther conceived, that the bread and wine thus changed, are presented by the priest to God; and he receives the name of Priest, because in laying them upon the altar he offers to God a sacrifice, which, although it be distinguished from all others by being without the shedding of blood, is a true propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the dead and of the living,-the body and blood of Christ, which were presented on the cross, agair presented in the sacrifice of the mass. It is conceived that the materials of this sacrifice, being truly the body and blood of Christ, possess an intrinsic virtue, which does not depend upon the disposition of him who receives them, but operates immediately upon all who do not obstruct the operation by a mortal sin. Hence it is accounted of great importance for the salvation of the sick and dying, that parts of these materials should be sent to them; and it is understood that the practice of partaking in private of a small portion of what the Priest has thus transubstantiated, is, in all respects, as proper and salutary as joining with others in the Lord's Supper. It is farther conceived, that as the bread and wine, when converted into the [body and] blood of Christ, are a natural object of reverence and adoration to Christians, it is highly proper to worship them upon the altar; and that it is expedient to carry them about in solemn procession, that they may receive the homage of all who meet them. What had been transubstantiated was therefore lifted up for the purpose of receiving adoration, both when it was shown to the people at the altar, and when it was carried about. Hence arose that expression in the Church of Rome, the elevation of the host, elevatio hostiæ. But, as the wine in being carried about was exposed to accidents inconsistent with the veneration due to the body and blood of Christ, it became customary to send only the bread; and in order to satisfy those who for this reason did not receive the wine, they were taught that, as the bread was changed into the body of Christ, they partook by concomitancy of the blood with the body. In process of time, the people were not allowed to partake of the cup; and it was said, that, when Jesus spake these words, Drink ye all of it,' he was addressing himself only to his Apostles, so that his command was fulfilled when the Priests, the successors of the Apostles, drank of the cup, although the people were excluded. And thus the last part of this system conspired with the first in exalting the clergy very far above the laity. For the same persons who had the power of changing bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, and who presented what they had thus made, as a sacrifice for the sins of others, enjoyed the partaking of the cup, while communion in one kind only was permitted to the people."(4) So violently are these notions opposed to the common sense of mankind, that the ground to which the Romish writers have always been driven in their defence, is the authority of their Church, and the necessity of implicit faith in its interpretations of Scripture; principles which shut out the use of Scripture entirely, and open the door to every heresy and fanatical folly. But for the ignorance and superstition of Europe during the middle ages, this monstrous perversion of a sacred rite could not have been effected, and even then it was not established as an article of faith without many (4) BISHOP TOMLINE on the Articles. struggles. Almost all writers on the Protestant controversy will furnish a sufficient confutation of this capital attempt to impose upon the credulity of mankind; and to them, should it need any refutation, the reader may be referred. The mind of Luther, so powerful to throw off dogmas which had nothing but human authority to support them, was, as to the sacrament, held in the bonds of early association. He concluded that the body and blood of Christ are really present in the Lord's Supper; but, aware of the absurdities and self-contradictions of transubstantiation, he laid hold of a doctrine which some writers in the Romish Church itself had continued to prefer to the papal dogma above stated. This was designated by the term consubstantiation, which allows that the bread and wine remain the same after consecration as before. Thus he escapes the absurdity of contradicting the very senses of men. It was held, however, by Luther, that though the bread and wine remained unchanged, yet that, together with them, the body and blood of Christ are literally received by the communicants. Some of his immediate followers did not, however, admit more on this point, than that the body and blood of Christ were really present in the sacrament; but that the manner of that presence was an inexplicable mystery. Yet, in some important respects, Luther and the Consubstantialists wholly escaped the errors of the Church of Rome as to this sacrament, They denied that it was a sacrifice; and that the presence of the body and blood of Christ gave to it any physical virtue acting independently of the disposition of the receiver; and that it rendered the elements the objects of adoration. Their error, therefore, may be considered rather of a speculative than of a practical nature; and was adopted probably in deference to what was conceived to be the literal meaning of the words of Christ when the Lord's Supper was instituted. A third view was held by some of Luther's contemporaries, which has been thus described: "Carolostadt, a professor with Luther in the University of Wittenberg, and Zuinglius, a native of Switzerland, the founder of the Reformed Churches, or those Protestant Churches which are not Lutheran, taught that the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper are the signs of the absent body and blood of Christ; that when Jesus said, 'This is my body, This is my blood,' he used a figure exactly of the same kind with that, by which, according to the abbreviations continually practised in ordinary speech, the sign is often put for the thing signified. As this figure is common, so there were two circumstances which would prevent the Apostles from misunderstanding it, when used in the institution of the Lord's Supper. The one was, that they saw the body of Jesus then alive, and therefore could not suppose that they were eating it. The other was, that they had just been partaking of a Jewish festival, in the institution of which the very same figure had been used. For in the night in which the children of Israel escaped out of Egypt, God said of the lamb which he commanded every house to eat and slay, 'It is the Lord's passover; (5) not meaning that it was the action of the Lord passing over every house, but the token and pledge of that action. It is admitted by all Christians, that there is such a figure used in one part of the institution. When our Lord says, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood,' none suppose him to mean the cup is the covenant, but all believe that he means to call it the memorial, or the sign, or the seal of the covenant. If it be understood, that, agreeably to the analogy of language, he uses a similar figure when he says, 'This is my body,' and that he means nothing more than, 'This is the sign of my body,' we are delivered from all the absurdities implied in the literal interpretation, to which the Roman Catholics think it necessary to adhere. We give the words a more natural interpretation than the Lutherans do, who consider "This is my body,' as intended to express a proposition which is totally different, My body is with this; and we escape from the difficulties in which they are involved by their forced interpretation. "Farther, by this method of interpretation, there is no ground left for that adoration which the Church of Rome pays to the bread and wine; for they are only the signs of that which is believed to be absent. There is no ground for accounting the Lord's Supper, to the dis (5) Exod. xii. 11. honour of the High Priest of our profession,' a new sacrifice presented by an earthly Priest; for the bread and wine are only the memorials of that sacrifice which was once offered on the cross. And, lastly, this interpretation destroys the Popish idea of a physical virtue in the Lord's Supper; for if the bread and wine are signs of what is absent, their use must be to excite the remembrance of it; but this is a use which cannot possibly exist with regard to any, but those whose minds are thereby put into a proper frame; and therefore the Lord's Supper becomes, instead of a charm, a mental exercise, and the efficacy of it arises not ex opere operato, but ex opere operantis." With much truth, this opinion falls short of the whole truth, and therefore it has been made the basis of that view of the Lord's Supper which reduces it to a mere religions commemoration of the death of Christ, with this addition, that it has a natural fitness to produce salutary emotions, to possess our minds with religious reflections, and to strengthen virtuous resolutions. Some divines of the Church of England, and the Socinians generally, have adopted, and endeavoured to defend, this interpretation. The fourth opinion is that of the Reformed Churches, and was taught with great success by Calvin. It has been thus well epitomised by Dr. Hill: "He knew that former attempts to reconcile the systems of Luther and Zuinglius had proved fruitless. But he saw the importance of uniting Protestants upon a point, with respect to which they agreed in condemning the errors of the Church of Rome; and his zeal in renewing the attempt was probably quickened by the sincere friendship which he entertained for Melancthon, who was the successor of Luther, while he himself had succeeded Zuinglius in conducting the Reformation in Switzerland. He thought that the system of Zuinglius did not come up to the force of the expressions used in Scripture; and, although he did not approve of the manner in which the Lutherans explain these expressions, it appeared to him that there was a sense in which the full significancy of them might be preserved, and a great part of the Lutheran language might continue to be used. As he agreed with Zuinglius, in thinking that the bread and wine were the signs of the body and blood of Christ, which were not locally present, he renounced both transubstantiation and consubstantiation. He agreed farther with Zuinglius, in thinking that the use of these signs, being a memorial of the sacrifice once offered on the cross, was intended to produce a moral effect. But he taught, that to all who remember the death of Christ in a proper manner, Christ, by the use of these signs, is spiritually present,-present to their minds; and he considered this spiritual presence as giving a significancy, that goes far beyond the Socinian sense, to these words of Paul: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? It is not the blessing pronounced which makes any change upon the cup; but to all who join with becoming affection in the thanksgiving then uttered in the name of the congregation, Christ is spiritually present, so that they may emphatically be said to partake, kotvwvεiv, μETEXE, of his body and blood; because his body and blood being spiritually present, convey the same nourishment to their souls, the same quickening to the spiritual life, as bread and wine do to the natural life. Hence Calvin was led to connect the discourse in John vi. with the Lord's Supper; not in that literal sense which is agreeable to Popish and Lutheran ideas, as if the body of Christ was really eaten, and his blood really drunk by any; but in a sense agreeable to the expression of our Lord in the conclusion of that discourse, The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life; that is, when I say to you, Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him; he shall live by me, for my flesh is meat indeed,' you are to understand these words, not in a literal, but in a spiritual sense. The spiritual sense adopted by the Socinians is barely this, that the doctrine of Christ is the food of the soul, by cherishing a life of virtue here, and the hope of a glorious life hereafter. The Calvinists think, that into the full meaning of the figure used in these words, there enter not merely the exhortations and instructions which a belief of the Gospel affords, but also that union between Christ and his people which is the con sequence of faith, and that communication of grace and strength by which they are quickened in well doing, and prepared for the discharge of every duty. "According to this system, the full benefit of the Lord's Supper is peculiar to those who partake worthily For while all who eat the bread and drink the wine may be said to show the Lord's death, and may also receive some devout impressions, they only to whom Jesus is spiritually present share in that spiritual nourishment which arises from partaking of his body and blood. According to this system, eating and drinking unworthily has a farther sense than enters into the Socinian system; and it becomes the duty of every Christian to examine himself, not only with regard to his knowledge, but also with regard to his general conduct, before he eats of that bread and drinks of that cup. It becomes also the duty of those who have the inspection of Christian societies, to exclude from this ordinance persons, of whom there is every reason to believe that they are strangers to the sentiments which it presupposes, and without which none are prepared for holding that communion with Jesus which it implies."(6) With this view the doctrine of the Church of England seems mainly to agree, except that we may perhaps perceive in her services, a few expressions somewhat favourable to the views of Luther and Melancthon, whose authority had great weight with Archbishop Cranmer. This, however, appears only in certain phrases; for the twenty-eighth article declares with sufficient plainness, that "the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner; and the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is faith." "Some of our early English Reformers," says Bishop Tomline, "were Lutherans, and consequently they were at first disposed to lean towards consubstantiation; but they seem soon to have discovered their error, for in the articles of 1552 it is expressly said, 'A faithful man ought not either to believe or openly confess the real and bodily presence, as they term it, of Christ's flesh and blood in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.' This part of the article was omitted in 1562, probably with a view to give less offence to those who maintained the corporal presence, and to comprehend as many as possible in the established Church."(7) The article, as it now stands, and not particular expressions in the Liturgy, must however be taken to be the opinion of the Church of England upon this point, and it substantially agrees with the New Testament. The SACRAMENTAL character of this ordinance is the first point to be established, in order to a true conception of its nature and import. It is more than a commemorative rite, it is commemorative sacramentally; in other words, it is a commemorative sign and seal of the covenant of our redemption. The first proof of this may be deduced from our Lord's words used in the institution of the ordinance: "This is my body, this is my blood," are words which show a most intimate connexion between the elements, and that which was represented by them, the sacrificial offering of the body and blood of Christ, as the price of our redemption; they were the signs of what was "given for us," surrendered to death in our room and stead, that we might have the benefit of liberation from eternal death. Again, "This is the New Testament," or covenant, "in my blood." The covenant itself was ratified by the blood of Christ, and it is therefore called by St. Paul "the blood of the everlasting covenant;" and the cup had so intimate a connexion with that covenant, as to represent it and the means of its establishment, or of its acquiring validity,-the shedding of the blood of our Saviour. It is clear, therefore, that the rite of the Lord's Supper is a covenant rite, and consequently a sacrament; a visible sign and seal on the part of Him who made the covenant, that it was established in, and ratified by, the sacrificial death of Christ. As it bears this covenant or sacramental character on the part of the Institutor, so also on the part of the recipients. They were all to eat the bread in "remembrance" of Christ; in remembrance, certainly, of his death in particular; yet not as a mere historical event, but of his death as sacrificial; and therefore the com (6) Theological Lectures. (7) Exposition of the Articles. |